By Chris Trotter*
Much has been made of Prime Minister Chris Luxon’s definitive rejection of Act’s Treaty Principles Bill. Why? Because Luxon not only confirmed that National will vote against giving David Seymour’s bill a second reading, but at the same time acknowledged that the only reason he agreed to support it to the select committee stage was because he did not want to precipitate an unscheduled general election so soon after 14 October. Besides providing us with a useful gauge of Luxon’s prime ministerial fortitude, Luxon’s “slap-down” of Seymour’s bottom-line policy also betrays his fundamental misreading of the election result’s meaning.
The General Election of 2023 was a rejection election, and rejection elections are powered, overwhelmingly, by popular anger. Not only was there a broad-based and vociferous element within the electorate determined to punish the incumbent Labour Government, but also a coterminous movement to roll back what was perceived to be Labour’s extreme, ideologically-driven, cultural agenda.
At no time during the election campaign did either Christopher Luxon or the National Party attempt to draw a clear distinction between themselves and the other right-wing parties – Act and NZ First – on matters relating to Māori sovereignty.
When Winston Peters announced his party’s policies in relation to removing Treaty principles from legislation, and reframing the mission of the Waitangi Tribunal, Luxon did not recoil in horror. Nor did he remind New Zealanders that it was National, under Jim Bolger and Doug Graham, that kicked-off the Treaty Settlement process back in the early-1990s. Or recall with pride that it was John Key who sent Pita Sharples to New York to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
To be sure, when questioned directly about Act’s desire to clarify the principles of the Treaty by way of a binding referendum, Luxon described his most obvious coalition partner’s policy as “unhelpful and divisive”. That this response was a sop to the liberal wing of Luxon’s party, and to its more “moderate” voters, was made clear by his promotion of policies that unequivocally aligned the National Party with the right-wing populist mood of the nation. Most notably, National’s policy of curbing co-governance by abolishing Three Waters and the Māori Health Authority.
A National Party willing to send that sort of reactionary message to the electorate was not in the least bit concerned about being seen as “unhelpful” or “divisive”. And neither was the National Party committed to reinstating English at the top of official government stationery.
But those were only the most openly acknowledged efforts to align National with the majority’s determination to reject, repeal, rip-up and remove the ideological advances of Labour, the Greens and Te Pāti Māori. Voters who understood the secret language of New Zealand conservatism were in little doubt that National had plenty more punishment in store for Māori New Zealanders.
Conservatives have long exploited the tendency of the racist Right to associate the social pathologies of drug use, domestic abuse, gun violence, aggravated robbery, juvenile delinquency, and truancy with Māori New Zealanders. That these are the pathologies of poverty, afflicting the lives of Pakeha as well as Māori, cuts little ice with right-wingers, who reject structural explanations for anti-social behaviour in favour of those highlighting personal and/or racial deficiencies.
Nor does the Right care overmuch that “cracking down hard” on crime will send Māori New Zealanders to prison in disproportionate numbers, leaving behind broken families and ruined lives. Even though, historically, “tough on crime” policies merely ensure that the cycle of crime and incarceration continues, unbroken, most National Party voters regard the policy not as “a fiscal and moral failure” (as Bill English described it) but as a necessary evil.
National retailed a reactionary manifesto of right-wing, racially-charged policies to the electorate throughout 2023. Spooked by Act’s record poll numbers, and watching NZ First’s steady rise with alarm, Luxon and his team were in no mood to front-foot National’s liberal traditions. No talk back then of ignoring the overwhelming political preferences of the voting public and making a strong stand on principle. If Luxon’s pollsters and focus-groups were telling him that the public was in a mood to discipline and punish – then discipline and punish it would be.
Not that Luxon, himself, was personally suited to playing the Hard Man. Robotically positive, with his happy-chappy platitudes playing on continuous loop, Luxon left the dog-whistling to his lieutenants. The nearest he came to playing rough was when he dressed up as a pirate – and even then he had to be instructed on how to wield his sword. Even so, when all the votes had been counted and there was a three-way coalition to negotiate Luxon struggled to locate his inner-thug. The National Party leader’s priority (in almost every setting) is to get whatever he is doing, done – whatever it takes.
And what it took was Luxon’s commitment to Seymour that his Treaty Principles Bill would be backed by National and NZ First to the select committee stage. What that meant was that Act’s coalition partners were supportive of the broad, open-ended debate that sending this particularly controversial bill to a select committee was certain to set in motion. It defies all logic to sanction this course of action if, in utter contempt for the consultation process, and regardless of what the debate reveals about the wishes of the New Zealand people vis-à-vis Te Tiriti o Waitangi, your Party’s next move is to vote it down.
Such a profoundly cynical political strategy would be dangerous at the best of times – and these are not the best of times. New Zealand is in the early stages of the same populist distemper that has polarised and paralysed the United States. Luxon and his party opted to climb on the back of the populist tiger, getting off it will be no simple matter.
To the hundreds-of-thousands of right-wing voters who backed National, Act and NZ First to bring together a government committed to disciplining and punishing Labour and its allies, it looks like Luxon’s National pony has refused its very first fence. Spooked by hui, hikoi and haka at Turangawaewae, Ratana and Waitangi, and bullied relentlessly by the “legacy media”, Luxon has publicly slapped-down the Right’s young champion which, as far as they’re concerned, is the same as slapping them down – the people whose votes put National in power.
But that is not how populism works. You can’t just switch it on and off like a lightbulb. Nor can you boast about ignoring the wishes of the “overwhelming majority” of the New Zealand people. Not if you want to remain the dominant right-wing party.
The sharp up-tick in Act’s support in the latest Curia poll should be taken as a warning. So, too, should the findings of the latest Research New Zealand survey. Against all the confident assertions of the punditocracy, a solid plurality of Men, New Zealanders aged 18-34, Kiwis living north of Taupo, and (astonishingly) Māori, all favour confirming the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by referendum.
Small wonder then, that in spite of Luxon’s very public slap-down, David Seymour is not at all disposed to giving-up the fight.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
161 Comments
To sum up, Luxon played it as “a bob each way” and if that is a harbinger of National’s application to governing then in all likelihood there will be an early election or a one term government. Luxon made no secret of planning to be a prime minister. Pity he didn’t plan more about being one.
"Populist vote"..."right wingers". No - most people that voted for the Nat - Act - NZF block were centrists seeking protection of NZ's democracy. The propaganda of the Left is winning when the Luxonot recoils at being labelled racist when all the Centre wants is him to hold it.
And the racist people here are the left which seeks to segregate New Zealand into Maori and non Maori. The extremists are the people protesting the fact that we can even have a discussion about the principles.
The principles have been set by a bunch of ruling class, academics and lawyers all known for there outstanding ethics (sarcasm), I know sometimes democracies don't come the best decisions, however its not like the millennia of rule by elites resulted in a fair system. There is no scientific definition of right and wrong, no qualification gives you some sort of provably expert status in the matter, its just a bunch of peoples opinions on what they feel is right. The whole term populism, seeks to invalidate common opinion with what a small group of people believe, and a using the appeal to authority logical fallacy, when in fact there is no authority when it comes to right and wrong, unless you believe in god but then we would have agree which one and interpret the bible (or other scripture) to see how it relates to the treaty.
To me the idea of giving Maori special status, is like saying I know how to fix racism, we should pick another group to be racist against.
Everybody should have the same rights, the same obligations. We should help people, not based on some ancestry but because they need it.
I find this concept that Maori have special status vaguely amusing (read delusional). The example I give is that 'Roads of national significance" that runs from Wellington Airport to Kapiti. Before it began I said to someone who was an advocate to Hobsons Choice - 'lets use this as an example and see how it unfolds'. His belief was that Maori interests would trump all others in this development - but the reality was the opposite.
That the roads ran through the wetlands and local Marae in Waikanae with no reduction in process or concession. The media was loud about whether (predominantly white) owners in Paraparaumu where compensated enough. Subsequently, there was outrage that some of the corners on Transmission Gully had Maori names that were too hard to pronounce.
And if there was any doubt, the Government has announced plans to spend on a new Mt Victoria tunnel so there is no threat to the Basin Reserve. So not impacting one disused cricket ground is costing more than all the treaty settlement put together.
https://newsroom.co.nz/2019/03/05/when-the-rules-are-different-for-mori/
commentary on this issue
so the debate is about how much maori was impacted - rather than querring why we are spending on the basin reserve.
CT usually succeeds in providing insightful and eloquent analysis however occasionally struggles with removing his previous decades of Left & Class bound blinkers.
I look forward one day to seeing his accurate reflections of the unbridled 2nd term of the 6th Labour Govt., include their unmandated antidemocratic racist attempts to create their ethnostate.
Yep. Large Majority in favour of a referendum, that will pass. Supported by normal everyday Māori who are completely different from the bleaters that we see on the news all the time. Kind of like the difference between myself and most of the rest of the country and someone like John Minto who appears to protest all the minority issues, and have very few clues other than how to organise a noisy rabble. My take on this is when it becomes clear that the public support is huge, then rather give in and support acts policy, National will opt to put it to the people, and make it a binding referendum. If they don’t do at least that, preparations seem to be already underway for a citizens initiated version.
Why wouldn’t this large majority have voted Act if they wanted a referendum? National didn’t campaign on one.
I think Trotter and co are stirring the pot, a referendum is not going to win National more votes but they could lose many if it backfires. It would be Luxon’s David Cameron moment.
If that poll from Oct is anything to go by, the support for the referendum is from Labour voters as much as National. Read the other way around, the opposition to the bill+referendum is more or less consistent between Labour and National voters, even if a minority. That means Luxon has maybe 30-40% of his support opposed to this. That is how he'd lose votes in going for this. You don't need to lose the majority of your support to utterly and convincingly lose an election, there's maybe 11% of the vote in swing on this issue from his supporters alone, which is equivalent to wiping out the entire Act party at the next election.
The gamble for him is whether the majority of his supporters will stick with him despite ruling it out. Given that the support for the bill is slightly stronger on the right, I think he feels confident those voters won't swing left to punish him, especially since it's unlikely Labour would entertain this referendum. It's a pretty winning strategy to ignore the majority here, only risks leaking votes right. And that's if anyone even remembers this issue by 2026.
Because you vote for a party on a number of issues not as single issue, for example you may vote for Labour because you may get a bigger benefit which may outweigh your views on race relations. Or you might not support ACT because you may think they support the rich to much. A referendum has no such constraint.
Look at "2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum" they lost but party that supported it was in power.
It seems like I am explaining something that seem fairly obvious, are you really that naive, being intentionally obtuse or I am unaware of the complexity of this concept.
Seems the most likely scenario, particularly if ACT's support grows as milquetoast Luxon attempts to become a professional fence sitter.
A future referendum, perhaps tied to next election, will allow Luxon/National to wash hands of the issue as best as possible (as the genie can't be put back in the bottle now).
There is a long and winding road to travel yet. I would give it a year before I see how the politicians deal to the challenge to our democracy.
However we have had two polls now showing a lift for ACT and the Nats. That's important. The politicians will have thought about little else yesterday
The absurd prancing and theatrics at Waitangi are much less important, although those will rise in volume a bit yet.
Perhaps try and emulate your pen-name?
The planet, and by implication NZ, is up against the Limits to Growth. This has its own implications; those who propose (exponential) growth from here on, will increasingly underdeliver. That will increasingly annoy those wide-eyed masses who were told that growth-forever was possible. They will do what Trotter correctly identified: 'New Zealand is in the early stages of the same populist distemper that has polarised and paralysed the United States'.
I repeat: Those who attempt physical GROWTH at this late stage, are both ignorant, and doomed to fail. Physics trumps keystroked digits, every time.
What comes next, is the bigger question? (because it won't be past-format Labour, and it won't be this false-doctrine bunch of clowns).
I disagree I think we need to know where we are going, if the people want to dismantle thing like the Maori Health Authority, or keep it then we need to know instead of each government adding/removing these things and wasting our time and money. Other things sure we should keep going, but its about time know what direction we are taking. As far as I can see that is all ACT wants to happen, make a decision whatever that be. All the people including the media throwing a hissy-fit over the fact we may finally have that discussion are the extreme ones here. Oh its too devices, people will get offended, well if you are offended by people discussing the direction future of New Zealand, then perhaps you should be offended, also not be in politics.
CT doesn't state it but in this paragraph; "Nor does the Right care overmuch that “cracking down hard” on crime will send Māori New Zealanders to prison in disproportionate numbers, leaving behind broken families and ruined lives. Even though, historically, “tough on crime” policies merely ensure that the cycle of crime and incarceration continues, unbroken, most National Party voters regard the policy not as “a fiscal and moral failure” (as Bill English described it) but as a necessary evil" He identifies the failures of all political parties.
the emerging tribalism, and efforts to re-establish tribal authorities will not fix the core problems. Something much more radical is required, and none of the parties seem to have the vision or the will to achieve this.
“those who favour equality for all are NOT racists” - from my experience a lot of them are!
Do you mean equal opportunity or equal outcomes? At the moment Maori are not getting equal outcomes, that kind of implies they are not getting equal opportunity. I certainly know many NZers that are “not racist but I’d never employ a Maori” etc. I think this idea that you have some kind of advantage by being born Maori is utter rubbish.
What about gender? We have government policies for equal pay for women, that is equal outcome not equal opportunity. I’d give Act more credit if they incorporated that into their referendum on equality, but it’s much harder to win when you pick on 50% instead of 15%.
Equal pay for equal work has been the law for 50 years. That's equal opportunity.
The "Govt policies" you claim as equal outcome, arise from an artificially constructed gender pay gap based on aggregate sexist misandry. They attempt to conflate individuals life choices with discrimination.
So why aren't Act campaigning on removing equal pay from government policy? If we had "equal pay for Maori no matter what job they choose or hours they worked", Act would be all over it.
My wife got a massive pay rise due to government equal pay policy, it was much better than anything Maori have ever got. Act should be reversing those pay rises.
Prove that "aggregate sexist misandry" is the cause. More than I think the world is misogynistic, there is a gender pay gap, see the world is misogynistic.
This is the problem with "fixing" a statistic, statistics do not explain why something is happening, it might well be that women choose jobs in a profession that is more focused on helping, where as men might chose one for money, maybe men choose more dangerous jobs. Why is that wrong? Why does it need to be fixed? Is that the reason, I don't know, but at least I am aware I am making shit up, and not directing public policy on ideas I just made up.
There is a murder gap where men get murder at twice the rate that women do, I think police should concentrate on solving an protecting murder of men until that rate is equal. Oh wait no we shouldn't that would be stupid, there are probably other reasons for that than systemic sexism against men.
I think this is well studied and you don't need to guess at why there's a pay gap. Yes women often work jobs we value less, but even women who choose a lucrative professional pathway are often interrupted in their career progression by taking years out to have kids in their prime ladder climbing years, and then men overtake them on the ladder and fill the board room. By the time the women are ready to take their rightful place at 40, there's no places left.
This is leading to stuff overseas like executive women freezing eggs so they don't miss out. Or like Japan where there's no children anymore.
As a society that's awful. Fixing it requires a distortion and recognition there's an inequity there, equal opportunity can't do it because there isn't equal ability or will to take that opportunity. One solution would be to require all men to take 5 years off from working in their late 20s or early 30s, maybe some kind of enforced OE on a desert island would do the trick. Or military draft?
Its the basic definition of racism isn't it?
The belief that different races possess distinct characteristics, abilities, or qualities, especially so as to distinguish them as inferior or superior to one another.
It would be statistically impossible for Maori to have equal opportunity and such unequal outcomes unless you believe the above.
No its not, because we have cultural differences, they may focus for example on sports as opposed to education. They may be told that they are disadvantaged therefore start believing that they are. They may be disadvantaged with kindness, where instead of being encouraged to get themselves out of disadvantage they are constantly being supported but in doing so removing the incentive to achieve more.
I recently had a Maori man that I was helping tell me that he thinks "honkeys" where smarter, that is his problem right there, if you don't believe in yourself you have already lost.
Maori are more successful in sport, if its impossible to believe that there can be a statistical difference in outcomes given equal opportunity, then clearly there is racism in sport against white people.
On one hand Maori is proclaimed as a different culture. With different beliefs and culture. And I agree with that.
But Jimbo sees different outcomes as racist. And the only explanation
He/she needs to think about that.
There are at least three causes of different outcomes. Racist yes. DNA yes. And cultural behaviours yes. More if you think hard.
"by equally I mean as if they are European"
I guess you could say that about the statistics themselves - they reflect values that not all cultures hold. Financial security, say, is not a priority for some individuals and for some cultures. Nevertheless, you cant arrive at A if you're aiming at B. Or, ancient Chinese saying: Man going nowhere is certain to get there.
Maybe when they see the school gate, they should walk through it rather than sidestep it. That would help a lot. All kidding aside, you need to at least do the basics. We all have equal opportunity. If Maori parents don't look after their kids properly and don't send them to school in big enough numbers then outcomes will of course be skewed towards the people that did. Remember also this stuff compounds on itself and is a multi-generational problem, poor attendance and outcomes takes years to fix when successive governments have just given people handouts and made the problem worse (particularly Labour).
In Brisbane driven by a Maori taxi driver in his fifties. His father a seaman had taken up residence there in the sixties. Our driver and his brother, electrician & builder were born there. Between them had started construction mainly commercial buildings, often spec. Sold it and retired. Why then driving a taxi. Because he loves the city and getting to meet people. Happy as Larry and not a penny of indigenous compensation required.
Wealth is also multi-generational. The best predictor of a child's future wealth is to look at the wealth of their parents. There are exceptions but most wealthy people (especially farmers and land-owners) are the children of wealthy people. Yes education is a route out of poverty but some families are so poor they need their kids to drop out as early as possible and get a job. Even taking race out of the argument, poor people do not have equal opportunity with rich people. A decile 2 South Auckland school is not the same as St Kentigerns or Kings.
Yes, wealth is actually a function of maths. Once you have wealth maths generally takes care of the rest if you handle it correctly. It means you can live life comfortably and be independent of any government agency.
I get the examples you are making, but it is the same with everything, and those that are established have it easier, i.e. if you start a business you are generally up against much bigger competitors that have resources and all of that. But, you have to keep trying hard and find that formula to find your way. It is the same in life, if you don't try, you don't get. I started with nothing, went to ok schools, did badly but finally realized I would turn out to be a loser if I didn't start making an effort. Now after much hard work I am financially independent.
Now I will drum the same into my kids what I tried to ignore when I was younger, .i.e. you need to work hard, otherwise you will fail. So, yes, they will get the advantage of knowing this for sure.
I doubt its the government that caused it! I remember how Maori were treated at my school growing up (~40 years ago), they were like second class citizens, from both the school and especially the students. Anyone who overcame that and made something of their life was amazing.
Yea I remember. My primary school was 30% Maori, some teachers were great but the likes of our form 2 teacher was a racist prick and made sure the Maori knew there place. I went from there to a boarding school, around 50% pakeha rest from everywhere. Much better treatment and my Maori mates there were way better off. Leaving school with qualifications and going to trades and uni than the mates that went to the local secondary school usually to 15 years max.
40years ago - some children with learning disabilities were treated the same way as you describe above. I know people who were told at school that they would never amount to anything, to have used that motivation, to become very successful. Some migrant children face similar reactions - even today.
Many years ago an elderly kuia once said, that in her opinion, it was welfare that has done the most damage to Maori.
No most disabled people do not have the equality of access to welfare and many are forced into abusive relationships just for somewhere to live and to survive. Sadly the lack of equality for disabled people has lead to greater inequality (where a birthday at 65 is considered a greater disability to prevent work income than actual disabilities & denial of access to employment).
You can't really use the ultra-motivated as a basis to hand wave away that treatment though. That streak of motivation to prove the naysayers wrong likely required some external influence in their life - maybe a sporting hero, maybe a successful businessman, maybe kaumatua who told them they're not what their teacher told them they are and they can be whatever they want. If the parents came from similar treatment (likely) then at home at best they were told to listen to their teacher and become whatever that results in.
I do agree the option of welfare has done damage to Maori aspirations, but also I think welfare became a kind of reparations scheme for governments after the enlightenment of the late 70s. Also after being pushed out to the regions by both traditional connection and poor education, Maori were more exposed to the creation of ghost towns in the 80s with the loss of mining, meatworks, etc. Without the will to leave those towns, welfare dependency has been the natural outcome there.
40 years ago disabled kids were being taken from their families, put into institutions where they were abused, tortured and raped and denied an education. Most died from injuries and abuse they suffered. It was so bad they nicknamed the flinch disabled people would have when approached (in fear of being hit) after the institutional prisons they were in. Many were put into unpaid farm work they physically could not do safely and many died from that too.
Today there are not the same provisions for equality for disabled kids (you can deny them access to education) where many are still denied access to their public school and denied equal access to classes and training. Around 50% of disabled youth have little to no access to education, training and work...
It is that bad. That your life outcome towards destitution has worse chances then a coin flip. That with each stage of homelessness and loss of work or access you are at risk of another bad coin flip leaving you in permanent destitution and of high likelihood of early preventable death (due to medical neglect and lack of medical access).
Yet not a single shred is done to change this open discrimination. The Health and Disability survey studied and interviewed 0 disabled people and had zero disabled people working on the research. It had a consultancy group for Maori though. Little surprise that zero changes from the Health and Disability survey were in real terms for disabled people but we got a Maori health authority even though it is disabled people who fare worse on every wellbeing metric. With most not even having access when they need to GPs, MHS, specialists, even hospitals. The preventative death rate for disabled people is decades younger then every single other social group inc Maori. Yet nothing was done and disabled people still excluded from existence in many stats in NZ. Our increased racist focus has actually worsened life outcomes for the most vulnerable and most discriminated against group which has directly lead to more early preventative death in the past decades (discounting the immediate decade after the mass deinstitutionalization where disabled people were finally free from the prisons and their lives and deaths were suddenly visible and more transparent to public as they were allowed to be in the community).
When less than 2% of homes are accessible to many disabled people no wonder families cannot afford housing now (disabled people have median weekly incomes around $350, far lower, often less than half, of non disabled people) and disabled people are the ones at greatest risk of homelessness, even being homeless with 100k+ wages. Maori do not suffer this level of deprivation or exclusion from 98% of homes. It is still legal to pay disabled people below the minimum wage... Equality yeah right our Bill of Rights act still has exemptions from rights for disabled people.
If anything Acts suggestion would actually mean disabled people might actually have access to this equality proposed. As unlike our Bill of Rights act and other NZ laws there is not an exclusion carving disabled people out from the ALL.
JJ you need to read some Thomas Sowell. He talks to this very point about not employing people who are grievance-focused, ie as they can always pull out the 'race card' when an employer has to criticize them on any issue.
Here is a summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixl-sCKFNI4
You didn't even watch the video, did you? The word 'grievance focused' is mine, because that is the outcome.
The point is a bad performing non-affirmative action employee is easy to fire without any comeback by them based on their race, ie you were fired just because you weren't good enough.
And Sowell makes the point that the threat of being deemed racist when the person is fired for inadequate skills, is enough to stop them hiring people to see if that was even the case, ie wouldn't take a chance on unproven employees to be proven wrong.
So a video by one of the most esteemed academics on these matters, you don't want to watch, because the evidence is counter to what you want to believe.
You have just undermined the credibility of any post you have ever written, and any future ones.
And Yes, that is exactly what Sowell is saying, the effects of affirmation action either go to those who need it the least or drive business to not want to hire those less educated who come under the affirmation action banner.
But you would already know that if you watched the video.
I'm sad to report that the worst people I've worked with have been women, and in those cases they have been ready and willing to play the gender card to gloss over poor/toxic performance, which has made them very challenging to deal with.
However per head of representation at workplace, the BEST people I've worked with have also been women.
You need to filter very well. It's very easy to dispense with a poorly performing white male.
You cannot objectively hold that belief and also be a racist. So any actual racist who makes that statement is not expressing their true beliefs. Unless you have adopted the alternative definition of racism (only the "oppressed" can experience racism) which conveniently gives people a free pass to engage in bigotry towards white people.
I'm curious why you think equal opportunity must result in equal outcomes? It's so easy to prove otherwise.
The 'equal opportunity' part is complex, but I'd be careful. My experience is that anyone who has done the relevant pathway, qualifications, training etc, and expresses the right attitude is welcomed. I find that most people are not necessarily racist, but are wary of attitudes around entitlement. And the group most likely to be expecting some entitlement can be fairly easily identified. But make no mistake if you're not Maori but somehow think you're more special or more entitled than those around you, and cannot deliver the goods, then you can expect to be given the push pretty quickly.
You have to feel sorry for Mr Luxon don't you. The time he spent acting as CEO of a monopoly company, all the while cheered on by the other weird Christians he was hanging around at the time, really convinced him that he was anointed to lead.
And here we are, the first real test of his leadership, and he's kind of ... hopeless, really. It would almost be better if he was competently ruining peoples futures, but he's just kind of wandering around, reading from cue cards, looking over at the real politicians for direction about what to do. Sad. Someone in the party really needs to sit him down and explain that he just doesn't have that dog in him.
No, Labour weren't.
There was an orchestrated smear campaign against Ardern, easily traceable (notice GBH is not commenting at the moment...) to those who needed unfettered access to physical resources (including spatial ones). Money won - as it usually does under this system.
Make that: did...
Funny, I thought that it was Labour that massively increased imports of coal to offset their incompetence around environmental issues and managing the economy (or anything for that matter). Now, I remember, massive imports of dirty Indonesian coal. Are they resources or not, and were they increasing in use under Labour or not. Money had little to do with it. Labour were useless and the country woke up to it (finally). I think you need to get around to accepting that one day soon. They lost the election ages ago. Shortly after the protests outside parliament. They fact that they happened and how they dealt with that sealed their fate.
Political parties don't import coal. That was a commercial agreement by a private company triggered by maintenance on gas pipelines by another private company. They paid their carbon credits for burning that coal, which it seems you'll now get as a tax cut. What's the issue?
We're beyond the era where the government digs up coal and puts it in their own power stations. If NZ can't produce coal on a commercial basis for domestic use (of course they can't, demand is tiny), then give it up already. Much like we can't refine oil on a commercial basis anymore, you can't expect the government to subsidise failing domestic industries in the modern era.
Come on Muzza. I agree with most of what you have to say but you’re sitting on the fence here. He is hopeless and was hopeless before becoming PM. I have a nagging suspicion that he is constantly worried about what the church and God think of what he puts forward. Let’s be honest, Mickey Mouse could have been the National Party leader and they still would’ve been elected.
I stand by what I said about Luxon. Yes I'm fence sitting, but we need to give him time to deliver. I do agree however that if Mickey Mouse had been the leader of the Nats they would have still got in, Labour lost the election rather than the Nats offering anything promising. Considering Jeremy's comments though if MM and Goofy weren't available, perhaps Donald Duck? He'd give it a quacking good go
When we are talking about this, we are not talking about the real issues for our nation, such as infrastructure.
why are the so called pro business parties not dealing with the real issues? Or maybe they are, with their secret lobbyist mates? Walked back on that transparency promise within the 100 days!
Maybe nz inc needs to have substantial changes to our social contract? But what is the whole agenda?
yeah the wholesale import of American polarisation is gross. "The other side is going to rip down democracy and become emperor for life!"
Smug governments have always appeared "undemocratic". Remember Key refusing to back down after the asset sales referendum? It's why we went for MMP in the first place after a decade of emperors. I think the 2020-2023 Labour govt is just a vindication that using MMP to stop absolute majorities doing whatever they want was the right call. That and that having an impotent opposition caused by the above is terrible for democracy - National was an utterly ineffective opposition after the leadership shuffling started.
Strong democracy requires a strong opposition, but not an obstructive and vindictive one like the US has. Russia is a democracy, with the opposition in the gulags. I think it serves as a useful guide that the threat to democracy is actually unbridled power, not just a government doing things you disagree with.
Hmmm yea , about that democracy thingy.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/508914/lobbyists-are-back-at-parlia…
Bit of serious co-governance going on here I reckon. Certainly makes this treaty arguement look like just noise.
Equal opportunity is not equal when each has a coin of the same value but the one with the most coins is the only one allowed an opportunity.
oh wow, anonymous lobbyists with swipe cards assisting parties with policy is not a concern to the speaker...
Didn't National just promise lobbyists aren't influencing their policymaking?
Why does anyone with access to parliament, even the cleaners, not face public scrutiny? Should list MPs be able to be anonymous too? This is ridiculous.
Probably so when the reporters ask if a lobby was involved with the latest law there are no records of lobbyists visits to catch ministers out? Like the recent Casey Costello saga. It is hard for the government to do whatever lobbyists say, while also looking good for the news.
Look closer at that research NZ survey.
The same young people who supported a referendum, also wanted more compulsory use of Te Reo , and ranked cost of living , long gp waits , hospitals and crime as priorities. no mention of racial inequality.
The slim majority want a referendum (majority been 36% here ), but I suspect they don't want the same result ACT and its supporters want.
"Robotically positive, with his happy-chappy platitudes playing on continuous loop"
Every time I hear Luxon open his mouth ... Perfect description.
With the 'Treaty Principles Bill' providing a dense smokescreen, I wonder what we'll see in the budget ... Haven't seen Jack Sh** yet. Just lots of wishy-washy, touchy-feelie platitudes and vague promises that outdo anything we got got from the previous government(s).
At present Crusher is the least of my concerns. That simian Brown dude is getting my goat. I love they talk up democracy but run roughshod over it in Auckland with the "central government knows best" b.s. Disgustingly two-faced and extremely short-sighted.
And ditching an existing "user-pays" system like the fuel surcharge with absolutely nothing to replace it except 'maybes' is the worst form over governance EVER! So voters ditched Labour because of their authoritarianism and then we Aucklanders got another form of equally non-sensical authoritarianism. Aucklanders are sick of this.
I don't know, this AUKUS thing is almost embarrassing. Rushing to AU to sign up to something they haven't started thinking about only to be told they'll get back to you when they start thinking about it. All to virtue signal that China is on notice. And attempting to run over a minister with a robot...
But yeah, battle of the Browns is great popcorn, especially since the same voters probably picked both.
This referendum is so similar to Brexit! Wasn't David Cameron backed into a corner by a minor party too? He didn't want the referendum but did it anyway.
National would be crazy to do it, more chance of a significant backfire than a positive outcome. The right can't win an election without the centre.
Sounds like you don't want to know what the 'people' think about this. It also sounds like when you do you will be quite shocked. The principles are going to say that everyone is equal and has the same rights and responsibilities or words to that effect. The alternative is that some people have special rights based on race, which is quite insane. So, only the insane will say no to the referendum, and a few people that standard to benefit financially.
"everyone is equal and has the same rights and responsibilities" - so does it apply to gender too? It would be interesting to see how that went. No more maternity leave? No more closing the pay gap?
The issue is that it is "equal" as long as we all live a European lifestyle. Its equal that all road signs are in English. Its equal that Europeans make up much more of the vote. Imagine if 85% of people were women and they voted for stuff that suited them, would that be equal?
Don't get me wrong, I think some recent policies have gone too far, you shouldn't be allowed to commit crime or get special hospital treatment just because you are Maori. But you should still be allowed to have an identity, a language, a culture, and a special recognition that your culture is part of the origins of NZ. You shouldn't be forced to into European culture to get your equal opportunities.
It would actually be interesting if such a policy could backfire on Act? For example would it be unequal to not employ someone who couldn't speak English?
What exactly to treaty issues have to do with a gender pay gap ? To answer your question no, it would not be unequal to not employ someone that could not speak English. Many jobs require people to speak English, i.e. you cannot be a pilot unless you speak English, it is an international language. Maori isn't, and is not a requirement for many jobs (if any). It is quite normal to exclude a candidate based on the language they speak, i.e. if you have the need for a Spanish or French speaking person then if course they need to speak the language you need.
"What exactly to treaty issues have to do with a gender pay gap" - if Act are all for equality, why no mention of gender equality? Why did my wife get a big pay increase in a government job just for being a woman?
"It is quite normal to exclude a candidate based on the language they speak" - sure, but if it is not an international job, what makes English special in NZ if we are all equal?
English is not special. It is just that 99% of the population here speak it. Just like French in France or Spanish in Spain. There are loads of languages in the world that almost no-one speaks, like Maori for instance. That in a way makes it a little bit special, as it a dying language just like hundreds of others in the same position, i.e. they have no use. That however, does not make it any more or less special than English, although you could argue that English is special because it is the language of commerce and the language of movement and navigation, kind of like the US Dollar being the reserve currency. It is the same concept.
School based, very female dominated, and the pay was crap. But there was demand at that price so I don't see how it wasn't fair and equal in a capitalist country.
If Acts referendum were to succeed, the ethnic part of this is removed but the gender part remains?
https://www.publicservice.govt.nz/system/public-service-people/pay-gaps….
It requires Public Service organisations to meet several goals between 2022–2024 including setting up plans and targets to improve gender and ethnic representation in their workforce and leadership.
Kia Toipoto does not cover the private sector.
Re your wife's pay Jimbo it seems you are missing the point. Your wife's organisation clearly had at some time in the past identified that your wife's role somewhere in the organisation, if filled by a man, was worth significantly more than they were paying women to do. The law required they change that, in the manner that all women were lifted to the same level.
I personally find it offensive that people are paid differently for the same roles simply based on gender or ethnicity.
The people don't actually get to reinterpret a treaty. They have vested interests in it being interpreted in their favour.
I worry that you seem to have prejudged what the Treaty Principles bill will say. What if after submissions, it instead reaffirms partnership as the core treaty principle and essentially enshrines the status quo in law? Do you think Act would still back it? Seymour says he's happy for it to come back from select committee as whatever, but I doubt the supporters of this bill would be happy with anything except this "everyone is equal, individual property rights are all that matters, there is one government and their say is final".
Some things just shouldn't go near the people. Imagine a referendum on banning Aussie bank ownership and forcing them to revert to NZ ownership. I reckon that would probably be at least as popular with the masses.
There was never a partnership in the first place. That is one of the primary problems. There will be a huge number of submissions from the public, reconfirming what we already know (that people have had enough of the BS) and it is time to finish this, so no more time is wasted on this topic.
It is holding us back as a nation. Needs to stop. That is what the people will say. Quite reasonably so.
You reckon a principles bill will finish Treaty angst once and for all? You reckon that bill won't be amended by subsequent governments (which will inevitably at some point in the future include TPM in coalition)? You reckon courts won't bend the interpretation of that bill where they see justice in doing so?
The people pushing this won't be happy until Treaty revocation is on the agenda, who Seymour currently calls "insane". There is no final interpretation of the treaty while it exists. Once you define the principles of the treaty, people will move on to interpreting the "spirit" of the treaty instead. Much like the bible, the interpretation of the treaty will continue to drift with the norms of the times.
The reason for this bill is not to make people equal, or to stop debate about the treaty, or to stop protests at Waitangi. It is to neuter the clauses in existing legislation that reference unwritten principles. Given this government also intends to start removing or defining those clauses anyway, it's at best a stopgap solution. Future (and probably this) government will write new laws giving preferential treatment to Maori without using the Treaty as a basis. There's still the need to fund Maori TV, fund Maori-focused charter schools, fund iwi health providers, fund kura kaupapa.
The bill is a constitutional one I believe and will therefore by entrenched which will mean it will need a much higher threshold to overturn.
Yes, the treaty references should be and will be removed from legislation, as that will be a good starting point to start undoing the damage already done.
Future governments hopefully wont have to worry about this, as the gravy trainers that currently push all this will be defunded after the bill passes, and therefore will not have access to public resources to keep the gravy train going.
A referendum doesn't entrench anything, except casually.
Parliament would need a super majority of 75% support from MPs on the bill to add an entrenchment clause to a binding referendum, if it turned into that. General thinking is you shouldn't mess with constitutional affairs without a super majority. I suspect Act is pushing for a referendum for its quasi-entrenchment status because they can't get a real super-majority of support. There's absolutely nothing stopping a simple majority removing or changing this law later, except the risk of public angst, a citizens-initiated referendum, etc. Same deal if a government went for asset sales or cannabis reform again without a second referendum.
I think that is the point. If this passes, which is it seems it will, it will have a large majority public support. Any future government will not be able to campaign on making adjustments or overturning or whatever, and so they won't. They would never be elected. The Ardern govt made the fatal mistake of going way outside their mandate and doing things that no one wanted. This is the reason for this roll back. and then the placing of a stake in the ground (the treaty principles). This will ensure this not messed with again. It is political poison.
You're dreaming. None of what you want will happen.
National are already running scared and nothing has really happened in the way of Maori protest. The treaty enshrines the special status of Maori in NZ and nothing David does will override that.
The only fair way to change what the treaty means is by negotiation with Maori. Using a majority referendum to impose a view is cowardly. Maori have had to pay money through the courts, often by mortgaging houses, to get a legal view on the treaty. If Luxon was the great negotiator they all say he is, then he'd be in there ahead of Seymour sorting it out.
Quite the contrary, they're standing up for their party's own legacy against a populist newcomer who's trying to subvert them. That's been made quite clear by having elders like Bolger out in the media in support of the status quo. National is more than capable of keeping Bolger out of the media if they didn't want his support on their position. National has done plenty of pro-Maori reform against popular support since the 70s.
Holding your ground while someone brings an army against you requires balls. National understands they need to exist, in relative harmony with Maori, for the next 100 years. Act understands they need to survive the next election. Winston knows he's on his last rodeo. The stakes are different.
Well time will tell how far National are willing to 'stand up for their party's legacy' - I'm guessing the issue will not go away unless retrenchment of some of the apartheid like policies is carried out.
Media loves to whip up the issue (click bait era of journalism) and politicians will see the segment of votes on offer.
Everybody is equal....just some will be judged more equal than others apparently;
https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/09/03/act-calls-for-productivity-focus-for…
excerpt;
“A lot of the treatments and the innovations being brought forward can actually deliver economic benefits because you’re treating people who can work longer or go back to work when that wasn’t possible.”“It would be good to be able to take a more holistic approach to what these treatments are bringing.”When asked if that meant more economically productive people should be prioritised for treatment, Stephenson said: “Not necessarily, but when you’re looking at the value of these treatments, that should be taken into consideration.”
It would probably be wise to inform oneself of what is proposed to be debated before determining whether or not a debate is needed (or desired)
https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/He-Puapua.pdf
As far as i can see from reading this document (commissioned and buried but largely followed by the previous government) there are indeed crucial questions to be asked and addressed....not least of which is how we could possibly remain a democracy under such a system.
David Seymour may couch his referendum in liberterian principles of everyone being equal. but you can be damn sure it will end up being a referendum on what the average european NZer thinks of Maori. Supporting it to select committee will be like lighting up the cross and handing out the pillowcases, then saying sorry folks time to head on home.
sure it will end up being a referendum on what the average european NZer thinks of Maori - This is rubbish. It will be a referendum on what ALL new Zealanders including average New Zealanders of European descent, Maori descent, Asian desent etc, think of elite radicals that seem to be intent on screwing the scrum for themselves.
Most recent arrivals are happy to be out of whatever 3rd world/developing world crap hole they came from and care not a jot for the treaty. It is European kiwis that has the biggest issue with Maori rights.
The treaty gives them a special status in NZ that has nothing to do with elite radicals and everything to do with the treaty. I don't have a problem with that because it was signed by the crown.The treaty not only protected their physical property rights, but also non-physical property rights. The courts have found that the best way to give substance to these rights is through the idea of partnership, but I'm sure David the legal genius will come up with a better set of principles than the best legal minds.
"The treaty gives them a special status in NZ"
You may very well think that. The rest of us know that they have "the rights and privileges of British subjects".
https://www.waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/02/mike-butler-kawharus-re-wr…
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/02/bruce-moon-look-at-yet-ano…
And history tells us that the crown ignored their property rights and privileges then invaded their lands torched crops and destroyed their means of trade and over ran their culture. European justice as accorded Maori by these rights and privileges means that must be put right.
You may judge everything on the basis of ethnicity but my concerns (and the concern of many I have discussed it with) are more around the pragmatism of a liberal (not libertarian) democracy and the benefits that such a system bestows despite its flaws.
Dont expect that those benefits should be discarded without due consideration
If anything Acts suggestion would actually mean disabled people might actually have access to this equality proposed. As unlike our Bill of Rights act and other NZ laws there is not an exclusion carving disabled people out from the ALL.
Disabled people are excluded from minimum wage, denied access to public schools, denied access to housing and employment and openly discriminated against in NZ laws. Finally having a bill that uses the term ALL can be used to challenge the discrimination and denial of rights in other NZ laws.
"That these are the pathologies of poverty, afflicting the lives of Pakeha as well as Māori, cuts little ice with right-wingers"
Surely you mean left-wingers! It is ONLY the left that is categorising by race instead of poverty. Your next paragraph on the same topic shows your misunderstanding of this point:
"Nor does the Right care overmuch that “cracking down hard” on crime will send Māori New Zealanders to prison in disproportionate numbers"
You can't have it both ways Chris. If poverty afflicts the lives of non-Maori as well as Maori, then so does prison. The right-wing are therefore consistent in their non-racial lens for both issues. It's ONLY the left-wing (not liberals) that misdirect using racial categories.
Winston Peters' point (and proposed action) was always better to my mind. There are no principles of the ToW - there is just the language (the reo version) as contained within Te Tiriti. An originalist interpretation is all that is needed.
David Seymour's idea is to re-write Te Tiriti through a re-definition of a set of made-up principles. Neither legally nor ethically robust.
We've already had 50 years of "made up principles" - made up by unelected unmandated self interested Waitangi Tribunal, academics and activist judiciary, facilitated by captured politicians and mainstream media.
I sent you the link to Sir Apirana Ngatas century old "originalist interpretation" a couple of years ago, this has much more ethical credibility than anything since.
so wrong the principals were determined by the high court and enacted by Daivid Lange
In 1989 the fourth Labour government became the first New Zealand government to set out principles to guide its actions on matters relating to the treaty.
These principles were:
- The government has the right to govern and make laws.
- Iwi have the right to organise as iwi, and, under the law, to control their resources as their own.
- All New Zealanders are equal before the law.
- Both the government and iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern.
- The government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.
No later government had defined any new treaty principles, although some (like the National government in 1991) have reflected on the 1989 principles.
Kate - Agree - Seymour and his crew are saying and doing anything to get and stay in power. A complete distraction to what we as a country should be discussing and deciding on - the distressing thing about this whole discussion is the amount of people in NZ who are buying into it. We as a people have an agreement with the crown. Is Seymour prepared to also disregard case law and legislation as built up legitimately over time in other areas. I would suggest not - hence an insight into his motivation.
So if the principles accorded to the Waitangi Tribunal by the Lange govt and time moved on when the agitation for NZ to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand, the Helen Clark govt declined. The John Key govt despatched Pita Sharples to New York to sign said declaration. The upshot of that action is that a plan had to be put in place to honour the acknowledgement of the signing. Key bailed and BIll English didn't want a bar of it. It was left to Jacinda Arden's govt to create He Puapua and that would be the discussion document going forward.
Something Seymour seems to conveniently not mentioned.
It is not a secret document as claimed. It had to be done or questions would have been asked in the UN. Not a good look for a foundation member.
Non binding is not what is at issue neither is the power of veto. What is at issue is whether grown ups want to have a co operative critical thinking oriented discussion or they want to behave as rigid non thinkers. Eight year olds learn to beginning thinking critically in their social studies curriculum. Many of the commenters here must have been away that day.
You are partially correct. The real issue is Governments making economic and financial policies that favour wealth and privilege, at the expense of the people. The treaty wouldn't be the issue it is today if this wasn't the case. Until politicians grow some balls and enact policies that genuinely protect the people (and many will be at the expense of wealthy) nothing will change. Trying to oppress the masses and keep them down only leads to revolutions. Nothing positive in them.
Yes , Seymour is acting as though none of what he wants has been discussed over and over, been through courts and academia countless times already.
Its just populist crap . And people buying it without even considering they should actually be going to the bill of rights if they feel their rights as a race are been eroded. Except of course , they're not , so they can't .
Well, I guess it is time to change the discussion. My guess is that 90% of people do not know what the treaty says, and the same people also do not realize that it has been interpreted incorrectly for far too long. What is quickly coming up is a lightbulb moment where they realize that they have been fooled (or didn't care) for years, and what Labour was doing was setting them up to be second class citizens. Anger, and then change will result. The treaty principles will be in place there will be no room for interpretation and people will move on. The media is driving the anger toward the treaty, whether it is deliberate or not I have no idea, but the more they go on about it, the more the support for this grows. I think maybe it has grown to big for the media and may be becoming self supporting, which quite ironic really because the media coverage has actually achieved the opposite of their objective and given ACT a huge head of steam.
That is a great idea. Though I think you'll find the principles they came up with solve a number of issues within the treaty because it is very broad in it's language.
How for instance to you go about protecting the language (a taonga) , when everything in the machinery of government and society is working against this?
All the attention being attracted by ACT and NZF might actually be doing Luxon and National a service, as it lets them just get on with things with rather less scrutiny than otherwise might be the case: a lot of Labour policy is being unwound with very little noise from the commentariat.
You are drawing a very thin line. Water meters do not mean privatization; but by all means explain how the biggest highest water users with intentional water wastage during a drought should have the poor (who use very little of the resource) pay to subsidize high users with far more funds and water usage businesses. Socialize the costs and privatize the profits eh. Well it is about time that for water the costs should be fair to the rate of water usage and that the poor should not be punished for the massive wastage in Wellington.
Sadly alongside unfair water charges in rates repeated councils have used hundreds of millions for photo ops of flippant installations that are merely lipstick on a pig. They do not even keep up with existing maintenance of infrastructure and because the rates pot is not correctly apportioned it will always remain that way the more water charges are hidden in rates. Councillors and mayors simply cannot prioritize water when their paycheck is more on looking good then doing good. But when a service is run like a service with local public ownership not only are the costs fairer but also leaks are more easy to detect, high users are charged appropriately and the council can always jump in with support packages where needed. They have public ownership of assets, clear siloed water use charges and can see the water usage so they can more effectively detect leaks and plan for each new year & season.
But giving away large chunks of public ownership of assets to undemocratic private parties, letting the poor continue to subsidize the largest water users & businesses and suffer depreciation of the infrastructure as well. Yeah thats not fair, nor even good financial & engineering sense.
Wellington has dug their own sinkhole voting in MPs, councilors & mayors who did not care about core infrastructure one bit. But since most people do not vote for those councilors and mayor or MPs they did not all deprioritize the core essential services they need to live. They all require fair access to water and they pay rates for that, but these rates have always deprioritized water maintenance & subsidized high water users that abuse the generosity for profits. Perhaps fair could start by setting a cost per liter and a minimum amount for the water piping maintenance needed in the area.
Wellington votes green right, well it is about time the public of Wellington learned 101 basics about sustainability and water infrastructure. You know instead of focusing on doing anything else to avoid core manufacturing and engineering work to protect & provide the sole key resource needed for human survival in the area. But instead they have Tamatha Paul, what were her skills and training in, what did she campaign on. Yeah, Wellington is going to be in for a sinkhole of pain for a while until they can learn water engineering 101. We still have fricken piping materials used today for installs that have been banned in the US, Canada and Europe because of the massive amounts of leaks (the materials were prone to severe faults and failures) that caused billions in damages. We have even stitched Aus up with similar pipe issues. Lets gets engineers in council and stop pretending politics majors know anything about engineering sustainability when they have zero mathematics knowledge or skills in the subjects. Who cares if they are not photogenic and bore us to death with piping network & materials discussions. Boring is not bad when you have a key resource needed for survival. Boring is not a water crisis and a city that leaks worse than a sieve. Boring is not ignoring maintenance so the culverts, spillways, drainage pipes &streams are blocked and the flood walls damaged causing a city flooding crisis as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTopVi1hVVM in infrastructure the movie when "nothing happens, and that is probably for the best".
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.